2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,476
#2,476
n_huffhines said:
Rhetoric is why he was praised and won the award. Same thing Reagan is praised for.
Click to expand...

You mean other than the fall of the Soviet Union and the nations in East Europe getting to determine their destiny without communist influence?

That the rhetoric you speak of?
 
#2,478
#2,478
Grand Vol said:
You mean other than the fall of the Soviet Union and the nations in East Europe getting to determine their destiny without communist influence?

That the rhetoric you speak of?
Click to expand...

He didn't "do" anything to accomplish that. The Soviet Union failed because communism doesn't work. Just like Reagan said, time and time again, they were doomed to fail. We spent like idiots for no damn reason. I have no problem with Star Wars, but everything else about our foreign policy during the Reagan years was a damn joke. Scandals, blunders, catastrophes, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,481
#2,481
n_huffhines said:
He didn't "do" anything to accomplish that. The Soviet Union failed because communism doesn't work. Just like Reagan said, time and time again, they were doomed to fail. We spent like idiots for no damn reason. I have no problem with Star Wars, but everything else about our foreign policy during the Reagan years was a damn joke. Scandals, blunders, catastrophes, etc.
Click to expand...

<sigh>
 
#2,482
#2,482
Grand Vol said:
<sigh>
Click to expand...

Arming the Taliban (you know what I mean), arming and supporting Hussein, Beirut, escalation of war on drugs internationally, Noriega, Iran Contra, Iran Air Flight 655, etc.

We tend to remember this simplified, quaint narrative that he defeated the Communists with both hands behind his back. It's not accurate. At all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,483
#2,483
n_huffhines said:
Arming the Taliban (you know what I mean), arming and supporting Hussein, Beirut, escalation of war on drugs internationally, Noriega, Iran Contra, Iran Air Flight 655, etc.

We tend to remember this simplified, quaint narrative that he defeated the Communists with both hands behind his back. It's not accurate. At all.
Click to expand...

You're right, the man didn't do anything positive in his entire eight years.

What were we thinking...
 
#2,485
#2,485
n_huffhines said:
So your responses thus far are "sigh" and a straw man argument. I think I'm winning.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you a secret that's going to entirely destroy your Randman crush...

He's not going to be any different than any other president that came before him if he gets elected.
 
#2,488
#2,488
Grand Vol said:
You and Huff are more than welcome to point to that post in 2020 and say "you were wrong."
Click to expand...

He's the only person out there (except for Bernie) who has been ideologically consistent. That's not going to change. If he wanted to be like everyone else, he would pander to his audience like Rubio and say the things he needed to get the big money supporters.
 
#2,489
#2,489
Vol8188 said:
He's the only person out there (except for Bernie) who has been ideologically consistent. That's not going to change. If he wanted to be like everyone else, he would pander to his audience like Rubio and say the things he needed to get the big money supporters.
Click to expand...

I never said he would change. But again, he won't be like any other President that's gone to Washington with big plans only to see it's an impossible task to get the changes he wants done.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing it. Token, if any, changes will be made.

And while we're at it, here's a good site for you when reading my posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,490
#2,490
Grand Vol said:
I never said he would change. But again, he won't be like any other President that's gone to Washington with big plans only to see it's an impossible task to get the changes he wants done.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing it. Token, if any, changes will be made.

And while we're at it, here's a good site for you when reading my posts.
Click to expand...

The most annoying thing about Rand Paul are his super annoying, arrogant yip yaps.

When someone wants to start talking about Paul I usually just tell them I'm voting for Bernie. I think there is a Ron Paul starter kit that comes with bumper stickers, tee shirts, pins, and a soap box.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,492
#2,492
Rasputin_Vol said:
Typical response from you. You didn't counter any of his points... just chose to pout in the corner.
Click to expand...

Of course I didn't. Because much like trying to talk to you, Huff only sees what he wants to see and believes what he wants to believe.

On the other hand, Huff actually is mature enough to have a reasonable, although sometimes heated, discussion from time to time. This happens to be one of the times where it's not worth the time or effort to sway his opinion because it won't be swayed. I'm not going to change his mind, so why bother?

You on the other hand are generally never worth the time or effort because you are nothing more than an insolent child that ignores facts tossed into your face. You really are the most childish poster on this entire board. So if you'll please STFU and keep your comments to yourself, we'd all be appreciative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,493
#2,493
n_huffhines said:
He didn't "do" anything to accomplish that. The Soviet Union failed because communism doesn't work. Just like Reagan said, time and time again, they were doomed to fail. We spent like idiots for no damn reason. I have no problem with Star Wars, but everything else about our foreign policy during the Reagan years was a damn joke. Scandals, blunders, catastrophes, etc.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union was an expanding force at the end of the Carter years. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where the tired and defensive containment policy under the feckless leadership of a Carter, a Mondale, or a Kennedy would have succeeded just as well as Reagan's offensive approach ended up working.

Reagan addressed this in 1981 at Notre Dame:

The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom and the spread of civilization. The West will not contain Communism; it will transcend Communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.
Click to expand...

This is what makes Reagan different than anyone from FDR to Carter. He didn't buy into a containment policy that allowed the Soviet Union to consolidate and expand its power. He played offense in both a military and a diplomatic sense.

Under Carter, nothing would have been done to give aid and comfort to Walesa and Solidarity in Poland. Reagan did that in concert with Pope John Paul II. That movement spread to the rest of Eastern Europe and it weakened the ability of the Soviet Union to expand its influence elsewhere.

There is a reason why there are statues dedicated to Ronald Reagan throughout Eastern Europe. He felt the Soviet Union could be defeated rather than contained and he worked to accomplish that goal.

Reagan Honored in Former Soviet Bloc Countries While Defaced in US « Mark America

We spent tremendously on defense programs because of the need to defeat the Soviets and to update a military that had been left to rot under Nixon, Ford, and Carter.

What did that spending buy? A peace dividend in the 1990s opening up the possibility to have balanced budgets and perhaps declining national debt as a result.

The fact that didn't happen isn't Reagan's fault. You can pin that one on the likes of H. Dubya, Clinton, Dubya and Obama and the mainstream politicians who refused to take a long-term view on the potential a declining defense budget offered the nation.

Beginning with FDR and continuing straight on through to Carter, we treated the Soviet Union as if it were a permanent fixture on the world stage. We didn't fight for freedom anywhere they were in power. We merely fought to prevent them from expanding their influence beyond the territories they or their allies already controlled.

Reagan was the game-changer. But I wouldn't expect someone who believes Jimmy Carter was a great President to get that. It doesn't fit with what Ron Paul has told him to believe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,495
#2,495
T.N. Buckingham said:
The Soviet Union was an expanding force at the end of the Carter years. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where the tired and defensive containment policy under the feckless leadership of a Carter, a Mondale, or a Kennedy would have succeeded just as well as Reagan's offensive approach ended up working.

Reagan addressed this in 1981 at Notre Dame:



This is what makes Reagan different than anyone from FDR to Carter. He didn't buy into a containment policy that allowed the Soviet Union to consolidate and expand its power. He played offense in both a military and a diplomatic sense.

Under Carter, nothing would have been done to give aid and comfort to Walesa and Solidarity in Poland. Reagan did that in concert with Pope John Paul II. That movement spread to the rest of Eastern Europe and it weakened the ability of the Soviet Union to expand its influence elsewhere.

There is a reason why there are statues dedicated to Ronald Reagan throughout Eastern Europe. He felt the Soviet Union could be defeated rather than contained and he worked to accomplish that goal.

We spent tremendously on defense programs because of the need to defeat the Soviets and to update a military that had been left to rot under Nixon, Ford, and Carter.

What did that spending buy? A peace dividend in the 1990s opening up the possibility to have balanced budgets and perhaps declining national debt as a result.

The fact that didn't happen isn't Reagan's fault. You can pin that one on the likes of H. Dubya, Clinton, Dubya and Obama and the mainstream politicians who refused to take a long-term view on the potential a declining defense budget offered the nation.

Beginning with FDR and continuing straight on through to Carter, we treated the Soviet Union as if it were a permanent fixture on the world stage. We didn't fight for freedom anywhere they were in power. We merely fought to prevent them from expanding their influence beyond the territories they or their allies already controlled.

Reagan was the game-changer. But I wouldn't expect someone who believes Jimmy Carter was a great President to get that. It doesn't fit with what Ron Paul has told him to believe.
Click to expand...

Wow. You totally missed his point.

His point was the the USSR collapsed due to the inherent unsustainable nature of communism; particularly on a very large and often growing stage.

You act like the USSR was sailing along great until Reagan came along. Although it might have appeared that way on the outside prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain, such mythology, which was projected by both sides prior to the fall, was quickly dispelled afterwards by the USSR's own inhabitants.

Acting as if Reagan didn't make this speech or that speech, didn't team up with the Pope in Poland, or didn't rack up debt would mean that the USSR continue strong is ludicrous.

If you want to argue that Reagan sped up the collapse by a couple years (no more than 5 years), that is a plausible argument. However, acting like he defeated a robust USSR is absurd. Communism and USSR's terrible decisions defeated the USSR.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#2,496
#2,496
It's sad that so many French men and women had to pay with their lives for the mistakes made by US politicians over the past 12 years.

We've destabilized an entire region and funded ISIS. Now the same politicians who caused this, are going to make American citizens pay with their lives when we put troops on the ground.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#2,497
#2,497
Vol8188 said:
It's sad that so many French men and women and had to pay with their lives for the mistakes made by US politicians over the past 12 years.

We've destabilized an entire region and funded ISIS. Now the same politicians who caused this, are going to make American citizens pay with their lives when we put troops on the ground.
Click to expand...
Thanks Barack, for apologizing yet again for The United States.

I have 2500 hours in C-130s. I'd go back in tomorrow to fly gunships to help rid the world of these scum. What are you willing to do, hoss?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#2,498
#2,498
SpaceCoastVol said:
Thanks Barack, for apologizing yet again for The United States.

I have 2500 hours in C-130s. I'd go back in tomorrow to fly gunships to help rid the world of these scum. What are you willing to do, hoss?
Click to expand...

First off: that's not really relevant. But I'm still in the reserves.

Secondly: these were our mistakes. We supplied them with weapons! We destabilized Libya, Syria, and Iraq.

US foreign policy is 100% to blame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,499
#2,499
SpaceCoastVol said:
Thanks Barack, for apologizing yet again for The United States.

I have 2500 hours in C-130s. I'd go back in tomorrow to fly gunships to help rid the world of these scum. What are you willing to do, hoss?
Click to expand...

Is that all you got spaceman? I've got 3,350 hours in my 1971 Ford Pinto. :crazy:



Thank you for your service, sir.
 
#2,500
#2,500
Gramps said:
Is that all you got spaceman? I've got 3,350 hours in my 1971 Ford Pinto. :crazy:



Thank you for your service, sir.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Gramps, but I do not feel like I really served since I was in during peacetime. I really don't even feel like I have the 'right' to render a salute during the National Anthem at Neyland as a former military member. But I do appreciate the sentiment.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top